re: BayouTraditions and similar NIL “collectives” are offensive.

quote:

---

When will the NCAA grow a pair and put an end to this madness?

---

NIL (at least what it's become) and the immediately play transfer portal are combining to kill the game.

NIL is legal, per the Supreme Court, so the NCAA is too scared to put some reasonable regulations on it. So that ship has sailed, unfortunately.

But the NCAA could definitely rein in the constant transfer of players, such as by reestablishing the 1-year sit out period for a transfer.

Allowing immediately play after transfer basically means every player is a free agent every year, and available to be bought by NIL.

It's destroying (or already has) destroyed the game.

quote:

---

Firing Will Wade in the current state of college sports was offensive.

---

nope. A coach still can't pay his players, even in the current state of college sports, and certainly don't be dumb enough to do it out of your own account.

quote:

---

I always thought the best solution was to just continue not using players' NIL on anything, as they had started doing years ago, so that they couldn't complain that they weren't getting their share of those sales. But no, the NCAA couldn't leave well enough alone, because the players cried "we're the talent! Pay us!". Sorry, that's not how amateur sports work, and with good reason, as everyone can now see, if they didn't know it already.

---

It always amazes me that people who want amateur sports can justify the huge TV contracts that go to fund the huge salaries of coaches, AD's, conference officials, etc.and still call that amateur. Cancel all the tv contracts, live on what you earn from paid attendance, then you can really be an amateur. Of course it would all go broke then and we wouldn't have to worry about it. And of course there were already "collectives". It's just that they were used to pay coaches and not players.
Hypocrisy everywhere SNAFU!!

quote:

---

nope. A coach still can't pay his players, even in the current state of college sports, and certainly don't be dumb enough to do it out of your own account.

---

You just hang on to that nugget. Can coaches relatives/ friends pay them. Sure they can, through the collective. Will Wade had a collective, his wife.

Get on board or LSU will get left behind

NIL is the result of market forces. NIL is just water seeking its own level. Player compensation was inevitable.

I know what the initials NIL stand for. I understand that it is designed to compensate players for the use of their name, image, and likeness. But for many schools, teams, boosters, coaches, billboard counselors etc., NIL is not NIL. It's compensation to sign and play.

Is player compensation good for college sports? I think all sports benefit from relative parity and competition within the sport. But other than perhaps salary caps based on some revenue sharing guidelines to protect the schools and players, I don't care about whether player compensation is good for college sports.

I believe in free market economies.

Amateurism in Power 5 football is a myth and has been for decades. LSU was alleged to have professional players in 1908. Perhaps they weren't paid professionals. But the notion that some college football players were paid is over a century old.

Schools and entities that profit from college football have received BILLIONS of dollars in windfalls due to the legacy of amateurism. Schools have merely had to provide tuition, room, board, perks, etc. typically at or around marginal cost.

How much would players receive in compensation above and beyond tuition, room, board, perks, etc. if there were no regulations preventing them from receiving that compensation?

College football generates more than $4 billion in annual revenue for the 65 universities making up the Power 5. Most of the major professional sports share revenue between teams and players. Typically it's right around 50%-50%.

How many Power 5 schools are paying their players an aggregate of $30 million? ($2 billion / 65)

As a firm believer in free markets, I believe the players should receive what the market would bear if there were no regulations preventing them from receiving that compensation.

Why should government and quasi-government regulations prohibit players from earning market compensation?

quote:

---

“For really good players out of high school,” he says, “you’re talking $100,000 a year.”

---

Ross Dellenger, Sports Illustrated

So if a team pays all 85 players $100,000, the total player payroll would be $8.5 million. Seems like it might be too low.

It appears that the only way to solve this is through Congress. Title IX, anti-trust, and perhaps some labor laws might need a minor tweak.

quote:

---

I agree with everything completely but when you break down the actual amount of money the universities make off the backs of those kids, what they receive is pennies.

---

What the frick? For 99 percent of all NCAA athletes, their scholarship package and benefits exceeds their contribution to the university. It’s not even close.

Only a handful of elite players have a value above what they are currently getting legally from schools. And these are the players who were already getting paid under the table, and who have future pro careers.

We have blown up the whole system to benefit the 1 percent who were already benefiting the most.

It’s fricking insane.

They would be better off without the elite players, and keep the ones who want to be in college.

This will have dire results, even ones that are not yet fully realized.

This will eventually destroy non-revenue sports, or at least further marginalize them.

quote:

---

What the frick? For 99 percent of all NCAA athletes, their scholarship package and benefits exceeds their contribution to the university. It’s not even close. Only a handful of elite players have a value above what they are currently getting legally from schools. And these are the players who were already getting paid under the table, and who have future pro careers. We have blown up the whole system to benefit the 1 percent who were already benefiting the most. It’s fricking insane. They would be better off without the elite players, and keep the ones who want to be in college. This will have dire results, even ones that are not yet fully realized. This will eventually destroy non-revenue sports, or at least further marginalize them.

---

If Title IX could be reworked to allow for player compensation based on revenue generated, then there wouldn’t be a problem. I’m just not sure that will ever happen.

As for letting go of the elite players, we got a preview of that in men’s basketball 15 years ago. The NFL likes the way things are and doesn’t want to fund developmental football, so they aren’t going to change collective bargaining unless the courts force them to. And there’s been no indication they are interested in upsetting the current system. The Maurice Clarette case showed that.

quote:

---

Those are not “minor” tweaks you are talking about. That’s years of legislation and lawsuits working themselves out with all kinds of interests fighting to get the upper hand along the way. It took several years for the O’Bannon case to move all the way to conclusion and lead us to where we are today with NIL.

---

Maybe, maybe not. Could be as simple as some statutory exemptions enacted by Congress. Litigation is a part of life. Businesses know and expect litigation as a cost of doing business.



Some incontrovertible facts:

The market wants college football. The demand is in the amount of billions of dollars.

Many schools and most fans want successful college football teams. The demand is in the amount of tens of millions of dollars per school.

Successful college football teams require high-quality athletes.

The demand for high-quality athletes is very high.

High-quality athletes are in scarce supply.

Schools and fans are willing to pay for high-quality athletes. The demand is in the amount of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars per high-quality athlete.